No, I'm not talking about Iraq.
My friends, some scary, scary things are going on in this country right now.
A couple of days ago I briefly blogged about a proposal to change Virginia's license plates to anti-homosexual propaganda. This past Sunday afternoon I was home nursing my cold, listening to Janeane Garofalo on Air America. They did an interview with a representative of a Virginia state troopers' association, who explained why he felt the tags were necessary.
Now, these "tags" would be specialty license plates, so I guess we're operating on the assumption that only pro-traditional marriage types would have them (i.e., no gays). The man felt that this was an essential law-enforcement tool, so that troopers would have advance warning of the kind of "situation" they might find themselves in. For example, he said, "If you pull over a car for speeding that has the pro-marriage tags, this might be a heterosexual couple on their way home to have normal relations. If they don't have the tag, they could be on their way to some kind of drag situation, and I'm not talking about racing."
Yeah, he said that. I checked with a friend of mine from Virginia to see if drag was illegal there. It's not. Still, though, it's certainly understandable. Drag queens exceeding the speed limit could mean all kinds of trouble.
But there's more.
You see, there's such a thing as accidental fellatio. The tags would prevent young, innocent Christian officers from being "accidentally fellated." "It has happened before," the man insisted.
You have to wonder if he's speaking from personal experience.
"You have no idea of the seductive powers of a homosexual," he added.
Now, having seduced a straight man or two myself in my day (hey, that's what college is for!), I'm just going to take that as a compliment. But seriously, folks. Let's talk about this. There is all the difference in the world between seduction and rape. I didn't do anything with those guys that they didn't want to do. They just needed, shall we say, a little encouragement. There is no way to get someone to do something sexually against their will without some sort of threat or force. But that's not seduction.
Think of it in your own terms. Find someone, just out in public, that you are singularly unattracted to. Ask yourself, under what circumstances would you agree to have sex with this person? (If you're heterosexual, go whole-hog and try this experiment with a stranger of the same sex.) What would this person have to do to seduce you? Can you imagine any scenario in which you would find this person "accidentally" performing oral sex on you?
No, me neither. But apparently in Virginia it's so common that the police need some kind of early-warning system to prevent situations that previously have only been known to occur in low-budget porn films.
But, wait, there's more! In the same segment, they did an interview with someone from the American Family Association about why the recent animated film Shark Tale has a pro-homosexual message. The representative actually complained that the film sends the message that you should accept people for who they are. Like, if this were a lefty comedy sketch on The Daily Show spoofing uptight religious right people, it would be hilarious. But this guy was deadly serious. Please, if you need a laugh, click the link for the AFA's review to read about this poor cross-dressing, closet-vegetarian shark. (I wonder why they didn't do a similar review of X-2, when Iceman "came out" to his family about being a mutant.)
Yesterday the Supreme Court refused to hear arguments contesting Florida's new law which prohibits adoption by homosexuals.
I'm not through.
An interview in The Guardian appeared last month with Alabama Representative Gerald Allen, who is a Republican, if you didn't already surmise that. Congressman Allen has recently introduced a bill that would ban the use of state funds to purchase any books or other materials that "promote homosexuality." Allen does not want taxpayers' money to support "positive depictions of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle."
Among the targets are Tennessee Williams for Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and Alice Walker for The Color Purple. (These are positive depictions of homosexuality?)
Allen says, "We have an obligation to save society from moral destruction. We have to prevent liberal librarians and trendy teachers from re-engineering society's fabric in the minds of our children. We have to protect Alabamians."
Asked if such actions constitute censorship, Allen said no, and explained, "For instance, there's a reason for stop lights. You're driving a vehicle, you see that stop light, and I hope you stop." (You'd better have a pro-marriage license plate, if you don't.)
I don't know what he means, either. Just once I'd like to hear an explanation of what's wrong with homosexuality from someone who isn't a complete fucking moron.
So my friends, let this be a warning: the enemies of fairness and equality are stepping up their attacks. The good news is, they're not very bright.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Hopefully, I can avoid the complete moron category in offering the following observations…
First of all, I find this a very personally difficult issue. From a sociological perspective, gay marriage sounds like a great idea. Don’t we want to promote stable long-term relationships? It seems like there are quite a few benefits… Secondly, I think we should allow everyone as much freedom as we possible can. So, even if all the gays who married got horrible divorces, struck by lightening, if they want to do it, why not? It doesn’t seem like there is a reasonable probability of this concept doing so much damage to society that it should be banned.
On the other hand, if you look at this issue from a moral absolutist perspective it goes something like this. God/higher power/moral authority says that this is wrong. These people want me to accept it anyway. Result? Constitutional bans.
I say this as a person very conflicted by the interplay of these two ideas. I was once threatened by a minister of my church with disfellowshipment because I said I thought society should allow gay marriage (for the reasons above). Fortunately, he was over-ruled and that didn’t happen. A lot of people see this as something that is an immutably immoral thing, and therefore shouldn’t be accepted/encouraged/promoted. I don’t think there is really a logical reason behind the attitude, other than a “this is wrong” absolute.
That being said, I have heard a very small minority actually try to make a logical case against gay marriage from the “…weakening the institution of marriage…” angle. Personally, I think domestic violence, child abuse, and divorce tend to weaken it a whole heck of a lot more. The only reasonably credible argument I’ve heard has been against gay adoption on the grounds that children do best with a father and mother figure in their lives. But even on this issue, the data has been less than conclusive, so I am withholding judgment.
So, I hold two wildly contradictory perspectives. Sociologically, I think it’s a great idea. Religiously, it’s explicitly defined as a bad thing. I’m very divided on where to go from here. I’m uncomfortable with all the implications of religiously justified thought being embodied in legislation (even my own), so I don’t think I can ethically vote to restrict gay marriage.
One of the flaws of democracy is the ability of the majority to curtail the rights of the minority. Because of this, I think it behooves the majority to structure the country in such as way as to allow the maximum possible extent of diversity. Therefore, allow gay marriage, but then again God says NO.
Does not compute!
That’s the best I can do to explain it. Hope it helps.
I would also like to say that the concept of accidental fellatio is ridiculous. I’ve never been hit on by a gay guy, but I can’t imagine that I would “accidentally” find my pants on the floor.
Matthew, just curious, do you think homosexuality is a choice?
Michael, thank you so much for your sincere comments.
You have stumbled upon what is really the core issue of the debate raging in America right now over the nature of its democracy.
For all their talk of God and The Creator, the founding fathers quite intentionally created a secular government barred from giving preference to one religion or branch of religion over another or even over atheism and agnosticism. Remember that the majority of our nation's architects were of English descent; the bloody turmoil of the Protestant/Catholic wars in England were still in recent enough memory that they knew full well the dangers of having a government tied to religious beliefs.
Our laws and founding documents say that all men are equal and all men are entitled to equal protection under the law. That was a revolutionary idea that had never before been seen as the core philosophy of a national government. That is what made America America.
The government cannot make laws that restrict freedom of worship. People do, and should, have the right to have their own moral codes when it comes to their personal lives. It is their right to say they believe homosexuality is wrong; it is their prerogative to choose not to recognize gay relationships. Religious institutions need not perform same-sex marriages. Those rights are equally protected.
However, the argument that is being made is that the civil rights of a few -- which are guaranteed by the Declaration and the Constitution -- can be abridged or denied by another few, whose sole rationale is the interpretation of religious texts. The argument is that the bias of one group trumps the civil rights of another. One group may be larger than the other, but the issue of civil rights is not affected by the principle of "majority rule." All Americans have equal protection and equal access under the Constitution.
Now, as for the religious aspect, I offer today's post, entitled "Why God," as evidence that I have a Christian-identified faith in God. I hope it also is indicative that I have a passing familiarity with Scripture.
Yes, in places (specifically the book of Leviticus) the Bible categorizes homosexuality as an abomination.
Chapter 11 says it is an abomination to eat shellfish and pork. Where is the outrage??? Where is the Constitutional amendment???
Chapter 12 says a woman shall be considered unclean for seven days following childbirth.
Chapter 13 requires people with infectious skin diseases to wear torn clothes, leave their hair unkempt, cover the lower part of their faces, and cry out "Unclean! Unclean!" They must live alone.
Also mildew is an abomination. God is probably going to smite my shower any day now.
Chapter 15: When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean until evening.
Chapter 20 says the punishment for adultery must be death.
When the woman taken in adultery came to Christ, he embraced her and said, "Go and sin no more." When asked about dietary restrictions, the Lord said, "A man is not made unclean by what goes into his mouth, but rather by what comes out if it."
So these so-called Christians, who warn of the approaching destruction of western civilization because of the homosexual menace, cheerfully embrace one verse out of a book that they have otherwise completely ignored. They want to enforce the one verse that has no bearing on their own lives.
And now, if I may be so bold, allow me a moment of personal testimony. Today's post was about questioning God.
Years ago when I realized I was gay, I did not understand. I, too, was under the impression that being gay was morally wrong.
I ask you to accept that I had no choice. Many people do not believe that, and all I can say is that Jesus in the Bible did not look kindly on doubters and those who refused to show compassion. I would not have chosen to go through this. There was no choice. I am only attracted to men.
I asked God why. I wanted to know why I was condemned for eternity for a condition over which I knew I had no control. Again, that is a statement the religious right would dispute. I ask you in faith to accept it.
And then I fell in love. The details -- it was unrequited -- are inconsequential. But I fell madly, deeply, totally in love. It didn't have anything to do with sex or lust. There was no physical aspect to our friendship at all. But there was nothing evil, nothing selfish, nothing perverted about my feelings. They were honest and pure. I absolutely loved him.
From this experience, painful though it was, I learned a crucial lesson. Being gay is not about sex. It is not about choosing to have sex with men. It is not about evil. It is not about perversion. It is about love. Moses gave us ten commandments, but Jesus gave only two: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and all your strength; and the second is like unto it: love your neighbor as yourself."
It's about love. I just happen to love men. Why, I do not yet know. But I know that it's not wrong.
D'oh! on my previous comment. I know your name is Matthew, not Michael. It was a long day of blogging, sorry about that.
Not a problem at all! I’ve done similar things myself =)
Anyway, to first answer to the question from Toby. I must also confess myself a bit divided on the homosexuality as a choice argument. I think the Kinsey model holds pretty well (Yes, I realize his research has been disputed, but I think the overall representative model is a good one). Some people are exclusively heterosexual, some are persuadable either way, and some are exclusively homosexual. Picking one spot on the scale and claiming it to be completely representative of the whole of human diversity is an error. Naturally, I am completely unable to say where you or any other reader of this blog may fall on this scale.
This is also part of the reason I am uncomfortable with legislating this issue. The circumstances aren’t uniform, and a one-size-fits-all legislative framework is likely to help more than hurt.
With regard to the religious contradictions Andy raises, I would agree that appeals to the book of Leviticus are wholly without merit. The Mosaic Law was superceded by Christ’s teachings. We don’t follow “eye for an eye” or any of the other Judaic sacrificial covenants. Even if we did, there are plenty of things condemned in the bible that we allow without question (working on the Sabbath for example, hating each other for another). The bans on homosexuality in those sections should be viewed in the same light. However, I have heard ‘the learned righteous’ reference the book of Romans in this cause:
Romans 1:26-32: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly….
I realize that this reference isn’t universally accepted as a clear condemnation. Scriptural condemnation of homosexuality is a matter of debate even among churchy folk. However, I think the key point is that the religious world overwhelmingly believes it to be true.
Personally, I think it is reasonable to conclude that Paul taught that it was a bad thing. However, I am not aware of any evidence of Jesus personally also teaching this concept. I suppose it speaks to the extent that you want to accept Paul as a duly authorized revelator of the will of God… Which should also be noted as an issue of dispute among Christian scholars.
In any case, I return to my original dichotomy. I don’t have confidence that religion always serves as good public policy. So, even if it is true that canonically acceptable scripture condemns homosexuality, I think we should make as much room for diversity as we possibly can.
Paul also says that women should be subordinate to men in all things. Certainly not every church agrees on that sentiment, and many churches, or at least individual people of good faith, also disagree on the meaning of Paul's statement you cited above.
Romans 1:26 hinges on the understanding of the words "natural" and "nature."
Same-sex sexual activity is found throughout the animal kingdom, and even, in some instances, same-sex life partnerships. Penguins mate for life, you know. There is a male pair at the Central Park Zoo (where else?) that has been described as "inseparable" and has adopted a chick that was abandoned by its natural mother. (Do a quick Google search using "gay," "penguin," and "zoo" and you'll come up with lots of hits. Here's one: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4352011/)
There are millions and millions of gay people all over the world. There always have been, and there always will be. Bald eagles are less common than robins, but that does not make them "unnatural." It makes them special and rare.
Some people argue that because sometimes anal sex results in small tears in the rectum that it is "unnatural." When a women has sex for the first time, you have to sever her hymen. Women always bleed during childbirth, and it's exceptionally painful. Today we perform episiotomies and C-sections when vaginal birth is too dangerous. Historically, millions of women have died in childbirth. Does that then, mean, that the vagina was not intended for penetration or childbirth?
So I'm not entirely sure what Paul was talking about, but the argument that homosexuality is "unnatural" is a pretty weak description for an incredibly common phenomenon.
Of course, from an alternative perspective, you could also argue that "...men with men working that which is unseemly..." could just as easily cover Bush and Cheney plotting to take over the world at the Republican National Convention. =)
Post a Comment